Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38250170›Full record

ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2024

Evaluating the Use of Contrast Sensitivity Tests By Orthoptists in the UK.

Lowri Jones, Anna O'Connor, Ashli Warburton

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lowri JonesAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, GB.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6316-457X
Anna O'ConnorUniversity of Liverpool, GB.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0376-9670
Ashli WarburtonUniversity of Liverpool, GB.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4984-3469
University of Liverpool · GBAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The importance of the use of contrast sensitivity (CS) tests in orthoptic practice is well established. However, despite the clinical relevance the implementation within clinical care is known to be variable. There are no known studies that investigate the use of CS tests in Orthoptic clinics in the UK, therefore the aim of this study is to gather information from Orthoptists in the UK on their opinion of CS and use of CS testing in clinical practice, now and in the future. Methods: An online survey was distributed via JISC to the British and Irish Orthoptic Journal newsletter three times over a period of four weeks in June 2021 inviting practising orthoptists in the United Kingdom to complete. The questionnaire comprised of a series of questions regarding current use with free text responses for additional information. Results: There were 84 responses to the survey. The preferred test for adult and children testing is Pelli Robson with 50% reporting use of this test. 56% felt there is a need for a new CS test for young children, 12% said no and 32% were unsure. The highest percentage (57.1%) of participants were confident to some degree that their preferred test gave them useful clinical information. Conclusion: The result of the survey demonstrates the variability of CS testing currently in orthoptic practice in the UK. It also highlights the lack of currently available tests for children for CS testing, which may be addressed by the addition of the new Double Happy CS test.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityContrast Sensitivity TestingOrthoptists

Identifiers

PMID38250170
PMCPMC10798170
OpenAlexW4391028438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.